Brandywine Books
Halloween Reading: Young Goodman Brown
In honor of October 31, for some Halloween and trick-er-treating, I suggest we read Nathaniel Hawthorne’s great short story,
“Young Goodman Brown.” Many of us were forced to read it in high school, but maybe you didn’t. Reject that foul Stephen King novel! Banish that evil Anne Rice tome! Tolle lege* this short tale of a young man’s dreadful walk with the devil.
I think the reason “Young Goodman Brown” sticks in my mind as a great tale, other than my fascination with early America and affection for Hawthorne, is its clear description of how to set yourself up for believing a lie. Brown does three things in the first couple pages to seal his doom. He leaves his home at sunset to meet the devil in the forest. Apparently, he is searching for the truth. He wants to hear what the devil has to say for himself. And like an idiot, he starts his trip just before dusk. Darkness conceals many things, so if he really wanted to the truth, he would look for it in daylight when things can be seen for what they are. But at dusk, he walks deep into the forest—again putting himself in a place where shadows conceal. How much can you see when you’re in a dense forest at night? Still, Brown thinks he can meet the father of lies in a place like this and reason with him. That’s his biggest mistake, and possibly the one which made his doom inevitable. He thinks he can talk to the devil and parse the evil thing’s words for bits of truth. Of course, Old Scratch reels him in easily.
When Brown first objects to walking deeper into the trees, Old Scratch encourages him to present his arguments while the walk because he can always turn back. Too far, Brown says while walking. He must not be seen walking with the devil. Naturally, replies the devil, that’s why my dealings with your father and grandfather were kept secret. What! Can it be true? exclaims young Brown. Of course not, you idiot! You’re talking with the devil! He doesn’t tell the truth except to make a lie more plausible, because a slight miscalculation is an easier lie to shallow than a total fabrication. Brown doesn’t get it, unfortunately, so into the darkness he goes.
What about us? Do these steps apply to our quest of truth, even if we don’t have the devil penciled in for 10 p.m. Friday? Yes, they do.
- Darkness conceals truth. Light describes wisdom and knowledge. Read the first few chapters of the Biblical Proverbs for descriptions of wisdom and her methods. In order to shed light on the deep questions you’re asking, give yourself time and quiet reflection. Noise and busyness can act as clouds over the sun. Try to avoid them, but don’t think getting alone with your thoughts will draw the truth to you. You won’t give truthful answers to your own questions, if you’re the one confused. You can know the truth, and it isn’t merely a construct of your personal feelings.
- Trees obstruct the light and hide the real world. In the forest, Brown found that the night only got darker, and the same can happen to us in a forest of opinions. We can find wisdom in many counselors, but not all opinions are worth hearing. C.S. Lewis encouraged readers to postpone reading another contemporary book after reading an old one, meaning a book written before last century. If we consume many modern books, we can become conditioned by a limited perspective particular to our day. By reading old books, we are better equipped to see beyond a limited modern perspective.
- The devil does not have a worthy point of view. It’s common to try to hear both sides of an issue in order to form an unbiased opinion; but I’d like to suggest that some perspectives, some sides of particular issues, are completely wrong. As I said above, not everyone’s perspective is worth hearing. Some are logically inconsistent. Some are merely argumentative, that is, taking up a position solely to conflict with another position. The better ones are internally sound, though they may be based on lies or ignorance. And believe it or not, some are completely right. It’s no shame to be partisan when your side is right.
I hope haven’t bored you back to your Doctorow novel. Have a good weekend, and try to avoid the cheap candy. Life is too short to eat waxy chocolate and those nasty orange rounds.
* “Take up and read”
more on that here
Folklore for the Evil Day
I don’t like Halloween; but my favorite bit of folklore comes on that night. It’s a spell or ritual which offers a chance for you to see your true love in the mirror.
Start reading aloud here. All you have to do is to do this. At midnight, have a candle set before a mirror so that you can see your reflection. No other lights. Turn your back to the mirror and comb your hair while eating an apple. If you can look over your shoulder while biting and combing at midnight, my folklore sources predict you will see either the face of your destined love or the devil. What a deal! After going through all that trouble, you could have the horror of your life, seeing the devil or learning that your life-long lover is the nerdy kid from geometry class. But then, if you saw a terribly handsome face in the mirror (and it isn’t yours), be safe and assume it’s the devil. These are dangerous times, don't you know.
How Does the Same Old Junk Remain Offensive?
Last weekend, Britain’s Turner Prize, meant to inspire discussion of advancements in contemporary British art, held an exhibit of their short-listed artists at the Tate Britain art museum. As this
editorial in the Independent points out, the art is meant to be controversial, but where the controversy is may need explaining.
Controversy in the arts is a strange phenomenon. What usually happens is that one person declares that something is controversial, and then someone else comes along and warmly agrees that yes, it is indeed, and gradually a solid consensus materialises. Thus controversy rages - and not a cross word from anybody. Being controversial is like being perfectly round: it may need a bit of an eye to spot it at first, but once it's pointed out everyone can see it.
I leave these things to the experts. To my untutored eye, this year's Turner prize exhibition, which opens today, is an averagely disheartening spectacle. It's not quite as dull as last year's, but I wouldn't bother to go and see it. If you have a free afternoon, it would be better spent doing almost anything else.
You can view a handful of art from the four selected artists
on Tate Britain’s website, but if you don’t read the Independent editorial, you may have trouble seeing any controversy. I didn’t read the descriptions of the artists, so maybe it’s spelled out there.
Where is the controversy though? It’s in the subject matter, if you’re in the right frame of mind. An exhibit like this is labeled controversial because the labeler assumes the public finds certain things offensive, unapproachable, and immoral. I think the artists are supposed to be attacking common sense or the status quo; but who is offended? Are patrons of Tate Britain angry? Are other artists upset? If not, then maybe the controversy is only a perception of what the philistines might say when they get wind of it. Maybe the vice explored in this art still has that immoral feel, so that even the Turner judges believe that they shouldn’t promote this, but who’s to stop them. Are ugliness, nihilism, and jokes on abuse controversial? Apparently, not at Tate Britain. It must arise from conflicting perceptions within the patrons, judges, and artists themselves, a fight between the dominant point of view that enjoys twisting beauty into rotten fruit and the suppressed point of view that says beauty is worth promoting. I think those artists who endorse this sort of exhibit are only raging against an internal moral law from which humanity will never escape. It’s that sinking feeling we must suppress when we praise pointless, ugly art for being fresh, enlightening, and delightfully controversial. Sounds like a path to irrelevancy to me.
Connections B/w These Characters and Real People Is Intended
“There are two kinds of films about presidents,” writes Brent Bozell in
his Oct 26 column. “There are documentaries, which usually try to dwell in factual examination, and fictional movies, which have a habit of wildly making things up to satisfy the demands of making either effective entertainment or effective propaganda.”
Apparently, CBS has produced a mini-series which fits the latter description, and various executives are upset about the lack of evidence for the more interesting parts of the drama. I suppose if viewers are open to the idea that the Reagans, not only Ronald and Nancy, but also the families from which they came, were bigots and dunderheads, then I suppose the drama to be aired November 16 and 18 could be enjoyable. You have to have some level a belief suspension or openness to not believe former
Pres. Reagan compared himself to the Anti-Christ during a moment of weakness. I’d think you would have to believe it at least partially credible that Reagan believed AIDS is a just condemnation of homosexuality. See
this article for Matt Drudge’s summary of a script released by the
New York Times.
“The film script depicts Reagan cursing his staff during one Oval Office meeting,” Cal Thomas says in
his column on Oct. 28. “No staff member I know recalls him using such language in anger.”
So, what’s at the heart of this? Is this just one example of Art’s freedom? Is there a problem when a movie depicts real people doing things they didn’t do, saying what they didn’t say? I suppose there isn’t a problem as long as the artist isn’t protected from a libel or slander suit which could follow it. If artwork is delivered as dramatized fact regarding living subjects, then surely the creators aren’t free from accountability. But even as I write that, I have little faith in it. The American public and their civil leaders--if most elected officials can be called that—seem to have lost common sense or rational foundation. Maybe that is the true fruit of the public education debates. At least where ridiculous artwork is concerned, I don’t have to view it.
Political Titles Spew into the Market
Have you noticed the non-fiction best-selling lists are getting more political? Almost every talk radio host has his own book and many commentators or columnists do too. I saw this
Publishers Weekly story about it mentioned in
World Magazine. "This year's market [for political titles] seems stronger than ever," said Simon & Schuster publisher David Rosenthal, who in January will publish an embargoed, as-yet untitled exposé of the Bush White House by Pulitzer Prize–winning author and investigative reporter Ron Suskind. "I don't think I've ever seen so many books by the left on the bestseller list. It's rather astounding." ...
That's a decided shift from the period after 9/11, when [Barnes & Noble buyer] Leventhal found "it was extremely difficult to sell much of anything with a leftist point of view in any great numbers." ...
[But will liberal authors have the sustained sales their conservative counterparts do?] At Borders, for example, conservative titles tend to perform better over time, due to the extensive media networks that conservatives have developed over the past decade. "To give you an idea of which sells better, successful conservative books sell in the tens of thousands," said spokesperson Jenie Carlen, "while liberal books are successful if they sell in the thousands."
Rosenberg’s The Last Days
Regardless of the success or failure of the works described below, a third work promises to shine. Joel Rosenberg’s second political thriller,
The Last Days, ranks 161 on Amazon when I just checked. It will be another rank when you check. His first book,
The Last Jihad, sold well overall. You can read lots of praise for it on his
website, which attempts the feel of a movie trailer with suspense music and military/espionage colors. More exciting to me is the
first chapter available from World Magazine in a special subscription promotion. I’ve read into this excerpt. The writing is much better and the scene more sound than the excerpt mention below. It isn’t end-times fiction, so maybe it appeals to a different crowd than
Babylon Rising; but in my opinion, Rosenberg probably delivers the goods in
The Last Days. He certainly has the experience for it.
Had Enough of End-Times Fiction? Of Course, You Haven’t! Part 2
Yesterday, the world was inflicted with more prophetic fiction from Tim LaHaye. This time, he collaborated with Greg Dinallo, who is labeled a New York Times Notable Author on his 1998 book,
Touched by Fire. The new book is called
Babylon Rising, and I’ve read an excerpt from it, far more than what’s available on
the website; but if you read what is available, you may see why I’m unimpressed.
Now, I like adventures, and I don’t necessarily like end-times fiction. Also, I have not written even the first draft of a novel or book-length story; but I am a student of writing and lover of language, so on that basis will you accept my opinion that
Babylon Rising is contrived silliness that may have an interesting idea stuffed inside its shallow characterization and wordy descriptions?
It opens describing the latest challenge for Murphy, an Indiana Jones type Christian scholar. I can accept that; but Murphy doesn’t run from stones set up centuries before to protect ancient idols. He runs from lions in abandoned buildings put there by a cackling millionaire who gives these great treasures to him for surviving his lethal version of Fear Factor. Hopefully, the story floats a decent explanation for such a stupid arrangement somewhere on page 666, but the excerpt doesn’t go that far. If that sounds exciting to you, then you should be able to find a copy at any bookstore. Tonight, it ranks 436 on Amazon’s sales list. Reader reviews will be published on
Random House’s website.
But that isn't all you have to look forward to. Since
Tyndale House owns the Left Behind idea, they are issuing a series of political thrillers based on “the Left Behind universe,” to quote the promotional copy. Neesa Hart, a novelist and playwright who has good experience on Capitol Hill, is writing these stories.
End of State is the first book, coming in January 2004.
Purchases: Ryan Miller's Inkarri
I bought
Inkarri, the self-published debut fantasy by Ryan Miller. I mentioned its release in August. I'll let you know what I think at the right time. Miller has started a blog on Blogspot.
This note on book festivals is probably as sound an observation as you can find.
Christopher Paolini's Fantasy, Eragon: Inheritance, on Bestseller Lists
Lintefiniel of the
Jen's Speaks blog mentioned
this story about a teenaged writer yesterday. It's a great American Dream tale. Paolini wrote the first of a planned fantasy trilogy have he finished his GED, age 15. It took him a couple years or so, and he published it, I assume, through his parents' small publishing business. Instead of heading to college at age 18, he took
Eragon on a publicity tour.
"One of [the original] 10,000 copies the Paolinis had sold landed in the hands of Carl Hiaasen's stepson, when the family was vacationing in Montana. Hiaasen, author of "Striptease" and the Newbery-winning "Hoot," called his editor at Alfred A. Knopf and suggested the firm might want to take a look. It did, and at the end of [August], a newly edited hardcover edition of "Eragon" hit bookstores. The first printing is more than 100,000 copies.
Eragon: Inheritance is #7 on the
Wall Street Journal's fiction list this week and #34 of
USA Today's top 150 list of all trade books. Kudos to the new writer. May the hair on his toes never fall out.
$5.00 Non-fiction Book Sale from Spence Publishing. Of the books which stand out,
Branches to Heaven: The Geniuses of C. S. Lewis by James Como. "One of the twentieth century's most widely read writers and its most influential Christian apologist, C. S. Lewis has nevertheless eluded the understanding of the numerous scholars who have approached him only as a religious thinker and man of letters. Branches to Heaven explores the full range of his manifold genius and finds for the first time the surprising secret of Lewis's enduring literary and spiritual achievement." Widely read and influential, eh? But Lewis didn't make
that great books list for some reason. Hmmm.
Personal Outrage: Terri Schiavo
As I understand the story,
Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged 39 year old wife of Michael Schiavo, would respond to therapy, if given the chance.
This article from the Miami Herald doesn't mention that possibility, and I heard it from radio's Primetime America. The article does make clear the conflict between the husband and the parents. Apparently, Terri wouldn't have wanted to survive this way, if given the choice before hand. Her parents want to fight for her life, whatever it may be. So is this a "quality of life" argument? Is her husband with the courts approval saying death is better than disabled life? Though Terri may die--apparently feeding her orally is against the court order--I hope the "quality of life" argument dies too. How can we quantify the elements that compose a livable life? We can't. Life is given to us unrequested, and we must guard it for ourselves and the helpless.
I'm sorry this isn't literary in nature. Literature and the arts are my primary interest, but this story urged me to publish something.
Pop Entertainment as Cutting-Edge Culture: The Joys of a Middle Mind
In mid-August, HarperSanFrancisco released a book by Essayist Curtis White, the current president of the Center for Book Culture. It’s called
The Middle Mind: Why Americans Don't Think for Themselves. It was inspired by
an essay which is available at the Center for Book Culture’s website. I haven’t read the book, but I have read the essay and another contained in the book, so on that basis, let me write something about White’s idea. The Middle Mind, as I understand it, “imagines that it honors the highest culture, and that it lives through the arts,” but it is actually entertaining itself with the highlights of culture and a light chatter about the arts. White says, “The Middle Mind’s motto could be ‘Promise him culture but give him TV.’”
This rings true, but delivering entertainment masquerading as art, culture, and intellectual conversation is a danger for more than the purveyors of the Middle Mind, that is, if this middle mind is to be confined to the liberal and Buddhist worldview White attributes to it. White describes this mindset as liberal, though seeking middle ground between “the traditionalist Right and the academic Left.” He also says this mind seeks the Buddha. Well, if that’s how we define a middling mind, then I suggest its sister lives on the other side of town among conservative and Christian circles. The best-seller lists from the Christian Booksellers Association may be proof enough that a middle mind thrives there as well as in White’s neighborhood.
White rails against NPR’s Fresh Air with stunning examples of banality. He claims the host, Terry Gross, delivers the middle mind in ribbons on a pillow by having little more than a “voyeuristic” interest in art and culture. Read this incredible report:
Terry interviewed an author who had written a novel in which a woman says, "Drop dead," to her husband and the next day he does drop dead. Before the novel was published, the author's own real-life husband dropped dead on a tennis court. This was the point at which the book became interesting for Terry. If her poor husband hadn't dropped dead, Terry would never have been interested in her or her book for this Show of Shows. "What did it feel like to suspect you'd killed your own husband with your art?" Fresh Air? How about Lurid Speculations?
Freak! If I was asked such a ridiculous question, I don’t know how I would respond. I would probably be confused. “What did you ask me? Who would suspect something as stupid as that?”
White criticizes other examples of the middle mind at work, discussing a book on Buddhism that barely says anything on the subject and a critically acclaimed novel which appeared to be slightly upgraded pulp fiction. At the end of the essay, I sympathized with his conclusion and wanted to guard myself against this mental middling; but then I
read his analysis of
Saving Private Ryan and had doubts.
White makes a persuasive case for the premise that
Saving Private Ryan’s message was to kill your enemy whenever, wherever you find him. “Self-survival, the survival of the good, requires that one always choose death. . . . This is advocacy of international vigilantism and no whit more self-reflective than any Dirty Harry narrative.” If you remember enough of the movie, go ahead and read his thoughts. My thoughts are that he missed the point, if the point isn’t something we bring to certain movies as opposed to reading it in them.
The message of
Ryan was that an individual’s life is valuable. That’s why the military sent several men to recall one. That’s why Capt. Miller urged Ryan to earn the sacrifice they gave for him. That’s also why the captain allowed the German machine-gunner to walk free. They couldn’t keep him, and they shouldn’t have killed him, because his life, the ungrateful backstabber, was valuable. The fact that this Nazi lead others to the final battle to kill those who had been merciful to him is a reality of war. Had they killed the guy in combat it would have been fair; but killing him as a prisoner was not. Of course, that principle can’t prevail at the movie’s end for sake of formulaic drama. Revenge at the right time is more important in a movie than principle; but then, maybe I read the movie incorrectly. Feel free to correct me.
How this fits into a book on the middle mind is that most moviegoers don’t think this far about this or any movie they see. They enjoy the drama throughout and the revenge at the end and wonder if Outback Steakhouse will be too crowded when they leave the theater. The middle mind apparently doesn’t stop to consider most things. It just consumes entertainment and praises itself for the pretense of deep thinking. Whether White’s book says anything else worth hearing, this is a message we all need to remember. Liberals, conservatives, Christians, and Buddhists alike.
Don't Give That Child Candy. You'll Kill Him!
In academic news, Texas children will not be rewarded with candy in school, should they merit a reward or self-esteem boost at all. "The Texas Department of Agriculture is prohibiting candy from 'being sold or given away on school premises'" because the government has declared obesity an epidemic. Candy is technically a "Food of Minimal Nutritional Value," FMNV. Remember to ask for it by name. The Dept. of Ag. plans to "aggressively enforce and diligently monitor" schools to ensure compliance. Schools will be a no-candy zone. If I'm reading
the article correctly, this includes the students. Wasn't a child harassed by his school administration for giving a Tic-Tac or another brand of mouth mint to a friend? Now, mothers will have to avoid candy for dessert in their bagged lunches, if the state allows outside food on its campuses. Writer Brian Carpenter says, "Whether you agree or disagree on candy in school is not the point. The point is that it is not the role of government in a civil society to order its citizens around — even for their good."
Jonathan Edwards In Wall Street Journal
In today's Opinion Journal, this article mentions Edwards influence on Americans. It says most people know of him only by his "Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God" sermon. "Never mind that the message was less about fire and brimstone than about Almighty God's overpowering love for his fallen creatures. Whatever Edwards's language meant in his day, in ours it is inevitably viewed as the kind of Calvinistic narrow-mindedness finally vanquished in the Scopes Monkey Trial." The article mentions some the great thinkers failings, but praises him overall, especially for his countering of Enlightenment thinking. ". . . maybe he was right to suggest that those who discount Hell in the afterlife are less apt to guard against creating one here on earth." That truth is an elven horn which rings clearly throughout all of Mirkwood, audible even on the borders of Wilderland.
Personal note
I suppose it's obvious to all who have browsed Brandywine Books throughout a week's time. I am one of those net writers who has a good day job and a loving family, so I can't post observations as frequently as I think of them. With this and the fact that I don't write quickly and dislike posting mere links of interest, Brandywine Books isn't updated often. Let that not dissuade you however. Tell your friends and return to here for more of the same drivel you've read in the past. When you're done here, check out the links on the right. Many are very good. Some are only slightly less stellar.
Grace and peace.
Now, for a liberal take on the news, we go back to our regular programming.
Do you think the news media is too liberal, just right, or too conservative?
According to a Gallup poll released today, many people think the news media is too liberal and have thought so for a while. Of those polled between September 8-10, 45% said they think the news is too liberal; 39% think it about right. Of conservatives polled, 60% see the news as too liberal. 40% of moderates and 18% of liberals agree. Those figures have not changed significantly in the last three years.
On this date, October 5, 1703, the great
Jonathan Edwards was born in East Windsor, Connecticut. He became one of the great preachers and thinkers of the Christian church, ranking up there with Charles Spurgeon, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and St. Augustine. He is probably the best Christian minister America has ever nurtured. In an article for
World Magazine, Cultural Editor Gene Edward Veith writes, "Edwards' influence went beyond theology. His understanding of the beauty of nature and its connection to its Creator bore fruit in the magnificent landscape paintings of the Hudson River artists. His awareness of the limits and the sinfulness of human nature is evident in the fiction of Hawthorne and Melville, with its awareness of the darkness that dwells in the human heart. His rehabilitation of Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers made them palatable to the American Founders, who used them, in a Christian way, to forge the constitutional republic."
This fact may be what has endeared me to Edwards since I was in high school. I’ve often thought that I would blessed if I understood little more than Edwards’ life and teaching. I’m not sure that I’ve thought this for more than a few minutes at a time, especially since I’ve done nothing to back it up. Similarly, I’ve admired Nathaniel Hawthorne for years without a fully developed reason, that is, without a reason I can articulate. I guess I’m just a poser, a pseudo-intellectual, a plebian.
Doubtless, the sermon included in many American literature anthologies, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” is beautiful. “The bow of God’s wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at [the unbeliever’s] heart and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with [the unbeliever’s] blood.” Goodness! And Edwards’ delivered that kind of language in an even, quiet tone. But that certainly wasn’t his only message. In my barely readable anthology (I don’t think the publishers of my two-volume set seriously believed buyers would read them; encyclopedias are more readable than this.), the sermon prior to the one above is “God Glorified in Man’s Dependence,” which is, as I understand Edwards, the essential message of his ministry. John Piper (see right-side link) said it this way, “God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him.”
Ah, that is refreshing. Not politically correct, not egocentric, totally unacceptable in today’s colleges; but wonderfully relevant and fulfilling.
Had Enough of End-Times Fiction? Of Course, You Haven’t!
Prolific Author Jerry Jenkins of the
Left Behind series doesn’t plan to leave the end-times theme behind soon. Not only does the Left Behind series have three more books to go,
Glorious Appearing (March 2004), Left
Behind: The Prequel, and
Final Judgment, Jenkins has written the first of an end-times trilogy,
Soon, released September 16. “Before millions were left behind They couldn’t see it coming... SOON” I suppose if an author is onto a winning subject, he shouldn’t be blamed for following it. You can read an
excerpt from Soon on Jenkins’ website.
What do you think about this kind of fiction or this series in particular? I haven’t read them, though I did pick a free copy of
Left Behind for my extensive, unread books collection. Somehow, fantasies, literary novels, and mysteries appeal to me more than end-times suspense.
Library Joke
At the risk of infringing copyright, let me give you this Reader's Digest joke from October's issue. I don't see many of these. My precious wife is the one who enjoys our subscription.
Norm Williams from Connecticut says, "Searching in my library for two books by communications expert Deborah Tannen turned into an Abbott and Costello routine.
'What's the first book?' the librarian asked.
'That's Not What I Meant,' I said.
'Well, what did you mean?'
'That's the title of the book,' I explained.
'Okay,' she said, looking at me a little skeptically. 'And the other book?'
'You Just Don't Understand.'
'Excuse me?'
I got both books. Eventually."
Praise to Mr. Willaims for reeling in $400 for that submission. Speaking of fish stories, I had a similar experience with an attendant helping me with a bridal registry. I wanted to look at the list for a college friend, Julie Scott Emmons. The attendant said, "Let's start with the bride's last name."
"Scott," I said.
"Okay, we can go with the groom's first name."
"No, Scott is her last name," I said, wanting to add, "I gave you what you asked for. Now, work with me." But that's isn't as funny as Williams' story. I should look into Tannen's books, considering some of the conversations I've had with my sweet wife.
Where Did You Get the Idea for That?
from Anglican Book of Common Prayer, "We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts." That's where P.D. James took her title for the book I'm currently reading,
Devices and Desires. That's a good name for a murder mystery, don't you think?
Reader's Summer Reading
So what did the readers of Brandywine Books actually read this summer? Here’s the list from those who submitted titles to me over the past few weeks.
- Red Rabbit, by Tom Clancy
- The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis
- All of Grace, by Charles Spurgeon
- Stark Raving Dad! by Dave Meurer
- Christian Liberty, by Martin Luther
- Spiritual Leadership, by J Oswald Sanders
- Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens
- The Last Place, by Laura Lippman
- A Drink Before the War and Prayers for Rain, by Dennis Lehane
- American Gods and Neverwhere, by Neil Gaiman
- The Elephant and the Flea, by Charles Handy
Thank you to everyone who participated. I hope Brandywine Books continues to be worthy of your time, though lately I feel as if I have no time to blog on the ideas I have during the day. Right now, I'm chock-full of ideas for posts, but I need to go have summer with my little family. They are more important than this, after all.
